Texsanity

Saturday, January 18, 2003


IF THERE WAS EVER ANY QUESTION THERE ISN'T NOW - WE ARE GOING TO WAR, SOON

Instapundit links to reports of the long awaited "smoking gun":

The teams of UN inspectors sent to investigate Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction arsenal made a stunning breakthrough last week when they uncovered evidence of Iraq's attempts to build an atom bomb. Con Coughlin and Julian Coman in Washington report

T hursday evening turned into a wild night at the al-Hyatt hotel in Baghdad, for the 150 or so United Nations weapons inspectors who have made it their home.

Jordanian-imported wine flowed, glasses of whiskey were handed round and, as one witness put it, "the men from the UN with their blue baseball caps and grey faces were suddenly smiling".

During their two-and-a-half month stay in Iraq, the inspectors have not developed a reputation for holding late-night parties. Almost all are soberly in bed by 11pm, in order to be up the next day at 6.30 for a breakfast of fried eggs, omelettes or bread rolls. But this was a special occasion.

During the day, the United Nations Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission (Unmovic), had made the first significant find since its arrival in Iraq.

At the Ukhaider weapons depot, 90 miles south-west of Baghdad, inspectors had discovered 12 hidden artillery shells designed to carry chemical weapons. "We finally found something shaped like a weapon and not like a test-tube," said one inspector.


This is a reason for celebration?

But while in public the inspectors were celebrating their discovery of the artillery shells, in private experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna were digesting the details of a substantially more significant find - the blueprint of Saddam's nuclear weapons project.

On the same morning that a team of inspectors had found the 12 artillery shells, another team of nuclear weapons experts had paid a surprise visit to the homes of two of Saddam's leading nuclear physicists who worked for Iraq's top secret for the Ministry of Military Industrialisation (MMI).


When Saddam submitted his 12,000 page dossier to the United Nations Security Council at the end of last year, the Iraqi leader insisted that Baghdad no longer had any interest in developing nuclear weapons, and that Iraq's nuclear research programme had been discontinued.

The documents seized at the homes of the two scientists, however, confirm what Western intelligence has been arguing all along, that Saddam is continuing with his quest to develop the first Arab atom bomb.

Ever since the inspectors arrived back in Iraq two-and-a-half months ago, Saddam has gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal the true nature of his nuclear weapons programme.

Key Iraqi scientists have been given new identities and smuggled out of the country to take up postings in the Far East, and top secret documents have been hidden in the homes of Iraqi government officials.

Saddam's concealment operation had been so successful that the UN inspectors were having difficulty finding anything of any significance.

What made last week's breakthrough possible was a radical improvement in relations between UN weapons inspectors and Western intelligence.

When the inspectors first arrived in Baghdad last November, American and British intelligence officials in particular were reluctant to hand over sensitive information because they were not convinced that they could trust the UN.


I'm sure it would take the Iraqi's actually dropping a fucking nuke on Tel Aviv to get Martin Sheen's attention but this does it for me. My guess is that a lot more devastating evidence will be released around the State of the Union address and that the move to invasion will start at the end of the month.


BLOGCOVERAGE OF THE SADDAM HUSSEIN LOVEFEST FROM WASHINGTON AND SAN FRANCISCO

Lee at Right-Thinking
reports:

Anti-Semitism was rampant at the protest. I heard the phrase "fucking Jews" uttered by at least ten different individuals. I also heard a number of people discussing how the Israelis had infiltrated our government to commit genocide against the Palestinians. This sign is a great example of this sentiment. "I want YOU to die for Israel. Israel sings Onward Christian Soldiers." I would have expected this type of message from a Klan rally, or maybe some skinheads. I wasn't necessarily surprised to hear it from a bunch of left-wing anti-war folks, I was just surprised at how open they were with it.

The march worked its was down Market Street, and ended up in front of City Hall for the main rally. This is where the sponsoring organizations had set up booths to recruit new members and sell products.

This was the first table I came to. We have books such as Live from death Row by Mumia Abu Jamal. The videotapes on the left are called Genocide by Sanctions.

This table was manned by a woman who was obviously a life-long communist, only too happy to sell her propaganda to mislead a new generation of idiots. The table contained the usual stable of Marxist claptrap.

It was an interesting day, actually seeing these people in action. One of the city supervisors, Tom Ammiano, got up on the loudspeaker to speak. He gave the usual platitudes about the demonstraters being patriots, then stated that San Francisco was undergoing a budget crunch, and requested that protesters not tip over any police cars. A strange thing to hear from an elected official. I suppose if San Francisco was flush with cash then tipping over a police car would be quite acceptable. Apparently there is nothing wrong with tipping over a police car, only with the city paying to fix it.

Another one of the organizers who took the microphone, a woman, spoke of how nobody could trust the UN, because they were going along with Bush. Also, she reminded them, the UN is the organization who "took Palestine and renamed it Israel," then "forced out the Palestinians so that white settlers could move in."

It was also quite interesting to note the public sentiment regarding the "lack of attention" the media is giving these protests. I'm sitting here in my living room with CNN Headline News on, and stories about the protests are in heavy rotation, at least once every 15 minutes. There were a number of news helicopters flying the length of the march, and hovering over the rally at City Hall.

After a couple of hours I simply couldn't take any more. I hope that the people taking part in the protest got the sense of self-important self-congratulation that is the hallmark of their ideology, and the opiate that keeps them going.


Meanwhile, Texsanity special correspondent Max, The World's Most Confused Jew, gives us this first hand account:

The details of being in the crowd are pointless. There was a lot of yelling and vitriol, a good deal of sarcasm, and the occasional decent word. But the general gist of the atmosphere was really shocking to me. Given, this was my first protest, but I was shocked at how scarily uneducated 99.9% of the protestors were. The typical exchange went something like this:
WOMAN: You're @^#$ing scum, you racist bastard! YOUR President's a dumbass who just wants kill people!
ME: Ma'am, let me ask you something: do you believe in human rights?
WOMAN: Yeah, I do! You just want to kill people, you @#$!er!
ME: [Some sort of list of ways that Saddam Hussein has generally tortured and oppressed the Iraqis]. Why are you supporting him?
WOMAN: You're just an idiot! You're just @#$%ing naive!

Almost every person I talked to was interested in doing nothing other than drowning us out; not one would even attempt to mount a defense to any challenge we offered them, preferring instead to insult or scream at us; not one of the people we met who were demanding "their own voice be heard" was interested in allowing us to even talk amongst ourselves without interruption. Also, amazingly few people were on topic. Like all liberal protests, the crowd was essentially a mix of anyone attempting to hopelessly square pro-reparations, Green, extreme worker's rights, or anti-"racist" views with support for Iraq.


Very nice.


JESSE JACKSON AND OTHER FRIENDS OF TERRORISTS

There is one thing that you can count on: if there is a rally for a disgusting despot or terrorist being held, Jesse Jackson will be there, front and center. I am so immune to his putrid ravings that I actually sat in my chair laughing this afternoon while listening to his retread remarks at the anti-war (anti-America) rally in D.C.

The Palestinians were there too, of course. They should have hung big pictures of Jesse palling around with Yasser Arafat and Fidel Castro - I'm sure the ususal suspects in attendance there would have lapped it up.

The Palestinians - how dare they show up in D.C. and criticize the U.S. government after they celebrated the murder of our citizens on 9/11.

Palestinians are our enemies. Saddam finances their suicide murderers. Hussein tried to assassinate a former US president. He fires at our planes constantly in the "No Fly Zones" (established, by the way my pacifist friends, to protect ethnic and religious minorities from being slaughtered). He murders and tortures his political opposition. He starves his own people to protect his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs.

What the professional protest crowd at the rallies today were really saying (one speaker actually DID say this) was that there is NO EVIDENCE that could be shown to them that would make war against Iraq legitimate. No evidence of torture, rape, mutilation, mass murder, attempted assassination or development and use of WMD could convince these chin-turd wearing peaceniks that Hussein should be removed by military means.

I think these idiots should pick up weapons and fight with their hero Saddam against the American hegemon. Boy, the planet-wide IQ would make a substantial leap if we could get rid of all of those brain-dead fuckwits at one time. AND I'd never have to get sick listening to Jesse Jackson ever again.


THE NEW ANTI-GLOBALIST PEACENIKS: STAYING CLEAN AND CONTENT WHILE WATCHING THEIR NEIGHBORS' SLAUGHTER

Tip of the hat to Andrea Harris for directing me to Christopher Hitchens' view of the anti-war cretins:

If the counsel of the peaceniks had been followed, Kuwait would today be the 19th province of Iraq (and based on his own recently produced evidence, Saddam Hussein would have acquired nuclear weapons). Moreover, Bosnia would be a trampled and cleansed province of Greater Serbia, Kosovo would have been emptied of most of its inhabitants, and the Taliban would still be in power in Afghan-istan. Yet nothing seems to disturb the contented air of moral superiority that surrounds those who intone the "peace movement."...

Have you, or your friends, recently employed the slogan "No War for Oil"? If so, did you listen to what you were saying? Do you mean that oil isn't worth fighting for, or that oil resources aren't worth protecting? Do you recall that Saddam Hussein ignited the oilfields of Kuwait when he was in retreat, and flooded the local waterways with fire and pollution? (Should I patronize the potluckistas, and ask them to look up the pictures of poisoned birds and marine animals from that year?) Are you indifferent to the possibility that such a man might be able to irradiate the oilfields next time? OF COURSE it's about oil, stupid.

To say that he might also do all these terrible things if attacked or threatened is to miss the point. Last time he did this, or massacred the Iraqi and Kurdish populations, he was withdrawing his forces under an international guarantee. The Iraqi and Kurdish peoples are now, by every measure we have or know, determined to be rid of him. And the hope, which is perhaps a slim one but very much sturdier than other hopes, is that the next Iraqi regime will be better and safer, not just from our point of view but from the points of view of the Iraqi and Kurdish peoples. The sanctions policy, which was probably always hopeless, is now quite indefensible. If lifted, it would only have allowed Saddam's oligarchy to re-equip. But once imposed, it was immoral and punitive without the objective of regime change. Choose.


Yeah. But if we hadn't gone into Kosovo or Iraq in '91 there wouldn't have been any "blood on our hands". We would have been guilty of doing nothing when we could have stopped the massacres, but the addle-brained college students could sit on their lazy asses and drink their mocha lattes and smoke clove cigarettes with their marxist professors and congratulate each other on preventing the "American war machine" from action. Martin Sheen will save us...he'll come through and mobilize the PEOPLE to prevent the evil, unelected Bush junta from waging war for HALLIBURTON!

Not on my watch buddy.


WHAT IS A "ZIONAZI" ANYWAY?


Thanks to Charles Johnson for linking to Victor Davis Hanson's CSPAN appearance this week.

One of the callers, on the "hopeless moron" line, railed against Hanson calling him a "Zionazi" and claiming that he along with war planners at the Pentagon and State Department were "chickenhawks".

Hanson was simply pointing out that there is a difference between reasoned debate about how we should conduct the conflict that has been thrust upon us and hysterical anti-Americanism as practiced by the Hollywood types, leftist university professors and conspiracy theorists. The caller illustrated the point; he views Hanson as a "zionazi" threat who advocates blind adherence to Israeli foreign policy when it is really the hysterics who threaten free speech. Why is it that you can't make an argument for military action against Iraq without being tagged a Nazi? Doesn't that have a chilling effect on speech? And what of the movement to confine political debate on college campuses to "free speech zones" and to characterize certain viewpoints as "hate speech" subject to criminal sanction?

Of course these dimwits believe the J-E-W-S are controlling US policy behind the scenes. If that were the case, wouldn't we have taken the leash off and let the Israeli's punish the Palestinians as harshly as possible for their murder attacks? And if we try to moderate their actions because of OIL, doesn't that suggest that US policy is being formulated in our best interest and not the Israeli's?

A represnetative of CAIR was on CSPAN this afternoon at the anti-war rally in Washigton talking about US foreign policy. If we would be even handed, he said, we wouldn't have to spend so much money on homeland security because we wouldn't have so many enemies.

I'll say this right now - I have no sympathy for the Palestinian cause. None whatsoever. Nada. Nill.

They had a chance to have their own state in 1947 through the UN partition plan. That plan would have yielded them more land than the currently defined areas of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Instead of accepting this, the Palestinians joined forces with the Syrians, Iraqis, Lebanese, Jordanians and Egyptians (and some Saudi troops) to attack the newly formed Jewish state immediately upon its independence from British rule. The combined Arab forces, who were much better equipped, lost to an Israel with a population of 650,000. The Arabs, not the Israelis, caused the Palestinian refugee problem.

When the PLO was formed in the mid-sixties, Jordan controlled the West Bank and Egypt controlled Gaza. Again it was within the Arab's power to unilaterally form a Palestinian state. The true aim, however, was a bigger prize - the destruction of Israel.

The Arabs lost further ground in 1967 when, after repeated shelling from the Syrians, the closure of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping and the massing of Arab troops at her borders, Israel struck its foes and captured the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights and the Sinai peninsula. Again the Arabs provoked a war in their zeal to destroy Israel and lost.

During the nineties, Israel was prepared to make unprecedented concessions to Arafat. Almost all of the land in Gaza and the West Bank was to be ceeded to a new Palestinian state in return for peace. This was much more than the PLO deserved after three decades of murderous operations against Israelis (e.g., Munich and Entebbe). But once more Arafat walked away from the bargaining table and unleashed a bloody terrorist war against Israeli civilians. This in spite of the $400 million dollars of aid pledged to the PA by the Clinton Adminsitration as a part of the peace talks.

The Palestinians could have had their own, independent state fifty years ago. They could have spent the last half century developing their society with help from the US and with cooperation from Israel. Instead they chose to make bombs and murder little children. Whatever hardships they are experiencing can be blamed on no one but themselves.

There is one more reason why Americans have so much sympathy for Israel. When we saw the Palestinians dancing and celebrating the murder of 3000 people on September 11, 2001, we understood, now with our hearts and not just intellectually, what the Israeli people have been fighting against all these years.

I hate war. Any sane person hates killing. But I hate the killing of women and children with poison nail laced bombs more than I hate the killing of the bomber. Sometimes your enemies force war upon you. That is where we are now. Al-Qaida brought the war to us and now we will take it back to them and their allies and sympathizers. Strength and force are the only languages they understand - so now we will make ourselves understood loud and clear. No more negotiations with murderers; no more appeasement of criminals. We must take the fight to our enemies until they surrender unconditionally.

Sean Penn doesn't understand this, neither does Barbra Steisand or Jessica Lang or David Bonior or Michael Moore. They all believe you can hold negotiations with Saddam or any other sadistic murderer because, in the end, they are human beings just like you and me. NO they are NOT. Saddam Hussein isn't ANYTHING like me. Muslim theocracies aren't ANYTHING like American democracy.

Penn has the right to be a stooge for the leader of one of the most murderous regimes on the planet. I don't think he's a facsist - I just think he's an idiot. I'm not trying to suppress the free speech of my fellow citizens - I'm just trying to shame them into engaging their brains before their mouths.


Wednesday, January 15, 2003


FROM A "MAD" AMERICAN TO JOHN LE CARRE - FIND CLUE

Drudge points the Texsanity fisking blades in the direction of idiotarian John le Carre who thinks The United States of America Has Gone Mad:


America has entered one of its periods of historical madness, but this is the worst I can remember: worse than McCarthyism, worse than the Bay of Pigs and in the long term potentially more disastrous than the Vietnam War.

The reaction to 9/11 is beyond anything Osama bin Laden could have hoped for in his nastiest dreams. As in McCarthy times, the freedoms that have made America the envy of the world are being systematically eroded. The combination of compliant US media and vested corporate interests is once more ensuring that a debate that should be ringing out in every town square is confined to the loftier columns of the East Coast press.


WHERE? Where are all of the freedoms being "systematically eroded"? Where are the illegal serches, the police beatings, the censorship? Offer some PROOF to back up your assertions.

Apparently I missed the fact that San Francisco and Berekely were moved to the East Coast. And Barbra Streisand, Noam Chomsky, and Michael Moore they are all in the gulag now, yes?

The imminent war was planned years before bin Laden struck, but it was he who made it possible. Without bin Laden, the Bush junta would still be trying to explain such tricky matters as how it came to be elected in the first place; Enron; its shameless favouring of the already-too-rich; its reckless disregard for the world's poor, the ecology and a raft of unilaterally abrogated international treaties. They might also have to be telling us why they support Israel in its continuing disregard for UN resolutions.

Bush got elected via the electoral college which is how the US Constitution mandates that it be done. That issue is a dead one and would have been dead without the WTC attacks.

The problems that led to Enron occured during the Clinton administration (as did the begining of the recession). They were UNCOVERED by Enron's collapse during the current adminsitration. That fact only needs to be explained to imbeciles like you.

When did the US become responsible for the "world's poor"? The president of the United States is responsible to the citizens of this country who elect him. If, as citizens, we decide to assist other nations we may do so but that comes under the heading of CHARITY to me.

What international treaties have we "unilaterally abrogated"? Kyoto? Nope, we never agreed to it and the Senate (required by that pesky contitution to ratify treaties) voted UNANIMOUSLY against it. The International Criminal Court? Guess again - also never agreed to. The ABM Treaty? Still out of luck - we never violated that treaty.

There is no need to justify support for Israel. Go look at the record. Look at the record of UN anti-Semitism. I don't have enough time to educate a hopeless dullard like you.

How Bush and his junta succeeded in deflecting America?s anger from bin Laden to Saddam Hussein is one of the great public relations conjuring tricks of history. But they swung it. A recent poll tells us that one in two Americans now believe Saddam was responsible for the attack on the World Trade Centre. But the American public is not merely being misled. It is being browbeaten and kept in a state of ignorance and fear. The carefully orchestrated neurosis should carry Bush and his fellow conspirators nicely into the next election.

Bullshit. Find me an American that believes that Saddam Hussein was behind the WTC attacks. I bet you can find a lot more Europeans that believe that the American Government was behind it.

It must be comforting that people who disagree with you are knuckle-dragging neurotics. The more likely explanation is that you are an idiot.

Those who are not with Mr Bush are against him..

Yes....and your point is?

God also has pretty scary connections. In America, where all men are equal in His sight, if not in one another's, the Bush family numbers one President, one ex-President, one ex-head of the CIA, the Governor of Florida and the ex-Governor of Texas.

So were John Adams and John Quincy Adams scary because they were father and son? What exactly are you trying to say? That the Bush family is politically strong? OK...what about the Kennedy's? A president, two senators, a recent candidate for governor.

Care for a few pointers?

Not really.

George W. Bush, 1978-84: senior executive, Arbusto Energy/Bush Exploration, an oil company; 1986-90: senior executive of the Harken oil company....

Should have seen THIS one comming.......Pure GENIUS. I understand now! It's all about OOIIIILLLL! Did you think that one up all by yourself Johnny?

In 1993, while ex-President George Bush was visiting the ever-democratic Kingdom of Kuwait to receive thanks for liberating them, somebody tried to kill him. The CIA believes that "somebody" was Saddam. Hence Bush Jr's cry: "That man tried to kill my Daddy."

The mistake that was made, in this case, was that we didn't take out Hussein at the time. Are you really making a case that the attempted assassination of a former US President by a foriegn government IS NOT a rationale for war? Doesn't the fact that Hussein attempted it futher make the case against letting him possess WMD's?

Baghdad represents no clear and present danger to its neighbours, and none to the US or Britain. Saddam?s weapons of mass destruction, if he?s still got them, will be peanuts by comparison with the stuff Israel or America could hurl at him at five minutes' notice. What is at stake is not an imminent military or terrorist threat, but the economic imperative of US growth. What is at stake is America?s need to demonstrate its military power to all of us - to Europe and Russia and China, and poor mad little North Korea, as well as the Middle East; to show who rules America at home, and who is to be ruled by America abroad.

No, dumbass. US growth will be HURT by an invasion of Iraq not helped. If economics were the only consideration it would be a no-brainer (even you ought to be able to understand a no-brainer) - we don't invade.

America doesn't need to demonstrate its military prowess to anybody. I think that the Russians, the Chinese, the Arabs and the North Koreans all know what our capabilities are. What we do have to show the Arabs is that when we make a deal with someone there are stiff penalties if you breach the agreement. And that if the breach is serious enough, say you break a cease fire agreement by trying to develop nuclear weapons, that America has the POLITICAL resolve to use force to stop you.

It would be a real nice world if we could solve all of the differences between nations without resorting to force. It would also be really nice if John le Carre and his ilk woke up and got something resembling a fucking clue.

I wouldn't be holding my breath if I were you.


NEW DEMOCRATIC IRAQ

Instapundit directs me to Nick Cohen:

In Washington, the future of Iraq is ferociously contested. The names of the competitors on either side of the argument prove that you should never believe easy political labels. To the surprise of the simple-minded, Donald Rumsfeld and his supposedly "far-Right" friends in the Pentagon support democracy, while the CIA and the supposedly "moderate" Colin Powell at the State Department hint that they want to replace Saddam with a more compliant dictator.

Mr Blair seems to be with Gen Powell. Ever since Britain created Iraq in the 1920s, the Foreign Office has wanted a kind of apartheid rule by a monarch or dictator from the Arab Sunni minority. The majority of Iraqis, the Shia, have been kept down, along with the Kurdish ethnic minority in the north.


We MUST establish a democracy in Iraq after Saddam is deposed (however that may be achieved). How can we believe that democratic governance is good for westerners but not for Arabs or Muslims? Iraqis CAN govern themselves if the United States makes the effort and spends the money to give them time for democracy to take root.

If we are successful, all of the Arab world will be envious, not of American freedom and society, but of Iraqi democracy. Iran will almost certainly fall the to the tidal wave of western leaning student disent if the US takes down Saddam. Then the thumbscrews can be applied to the Saudis to reform their own house.

There is no guarantee that we will succeed in reforming Iraqi society along democratic principals. But if we are not committed to trying, my support for military action would be diminished considerably.


Monday, January 13, 2003


WHAT GIVES?

If I remember correctly, we fought a war to wipe out those smelly little anti-semetic, Nazi bastards. I guess we didn't do a good enough job of it the first time, eh? And what is a "neo-Nazi" anyway? You're either a Nazi or you aren't - it doesn't much matter if you're an old time Nazi or a new one - you still suck (that means you and all your America hating friends Horst-ass).

It's pretty interesting to take an inventory of the America haters these days - the German Nazis and the French, Hollywood, the New Black Panthers, Michael Moore, Harold Pinter (and his radioactive rectum), David Bonior, Patty Murray, Gerhard Schroeder, mullahs and imams all over the middle east, Pakistan, al Qaida. They all make the same putrid arguement over and over. America deserved it because we were bullies; America deserved it because we consume to much oil; America deserved it because...well, just because.

Screw these idiots. I support their right to say anything they want, the Nazis, Michael Moore and hell, even the French. I also reserve the right to hit these numbskulls upside the head with a 2 x 4 (metaphorically of course). What a disgrace to humanity they all are.

Excuse me, I have to go get sick now.


MORE NEWS FROM PROGRESSIVE GERMANY

Horst Mahler, neo-Nazi asswipe, is exposing the nasty hind quarters of resurgent German anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism and it smells:

A German far-right leader on trial for praising the 11 September attacks continued to lash out at the US in his first court appearance on Monday.

Why are neo-Nazis considered "far-right"? Weren't the Nazis the National Socialist Party?

Horst Mahler, a leading ideologue of the extreme-right National Democratic Party, is accused of condoning an illegal act.

Nine days after the attacks in September 2001 he said in an interview on the ARD television network they were "cruel" but "justified" and said the perpetrators had his full sympathy.


Horst is a racist imbecile and I'd punch him in his smirking Nazi mug if I ever got the chance. But the Europeans had better curb their increasing tendency to try people for things they've said. If we applied the same laws on this side of the pond, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, David Bonior and Barbra Streisand would all be in jail (hmmm...).

In court in Hamburg he said Arabs had a right to retribution against the United States, which he described as "the bloodiest and most imperialist power the world has ever seen".

That's right, the US is a greater imperialist menace than the USSR was, the Nazis, the Japanese, Napoleon...we top them all.

Mr Mahler, a 66-year-old lawyer, was once a member of the leftist Red Army Faction terrorist group, but later shifted to the opposite end of the political spectrum.

A former communist, neo-Nazi LAWYER. This guy IS pretty scary.

Mr Mahler told the court that the 11 September attacks were part of a US conspiracy to prepare a "war mood" in the country.

"It's not true that al-Qaeda had anything to do with it," he said.


Even a complete fool like Michael Moore doesn't believe (at least I haven't heard this from him yet) that the US attacked ITSELF in order to put the country on a war footing. If this was the case, Horst-face - you pathetic piece of crap, why does al-Qaida CLAIM RESPONSIBILITY for the attacks.

The Germans must be really scared of what their people REALLY think if they feel the need to prosecute a deranged, sociopathic, douchebag like Mahler. In a rational society, only mental patients and drug addicts would take this loser seriously. If he has enough of a following to be perceived as a menace, what does that say about Germany? A LOT is my guess.


Sunday, January 12, 2003


It's the end of another long day at the office. At least we have plenty of work right now which is a blessing.

I love Texas. It was in the seventies a couple of days ago and today it snowed for about five hours. Good weather for staying indoors and listening to good music (since I wasn't at home watching football).

The rotation today included: The Feelies - The Good Earth, The Loud Family - Attractive Nuisance, The Silos - Laser Beam Next Door, Jay Farrar - Sebastopol, Various Artists - Sing Hollies in Reverse and Seam - Are You Driving Me Crazy?. Listening to Steve Wynn perform The Air That I Breath gives the song a whole new (creepier) feel.

Now I'm going to go home and drink scotch.


THE LEGACY OF APPEASEMENT

Bill Richardson is having a little tea party with the North Koreans out in New Mexico:

A senior Bush administration official suggested yesterday that the nuclear crisis with North Korea was the predictable result of a flawed 1994 agreement signed by the Clinton administration with Pyongyang that "frontloaded all the benefits and left the difficult things to the end" -- for the next president.

Let's give you guys a couple of nuclear reactors and some fuel oil and other stuff (paid for with US taxpayer money) and then you can promise to be good...OK?

The new formulation of blame coincides with a spate of accusations, some from strong administration supporters, that President Bush may have antagonized North Korea by labeling it part of the "axis of evil" and helped provoke the crisis.

If Bush telling the truth antagonizes Kim Jong-Il, tough. The US has lived up to its obligations under the 1994 agreement. It is the NORTH KOREANS who have UNILATERALLY withdrawn from it by BUILDING THE NUKES that we were BRIBING them not to build.

That sentiment appeared to be echoed by North Korean officials meeting Friday and yesterday in Santa Fe with New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D). Sources involved in those talks said North Korea's deputy ambassador to the United Nations, Han Song Ryol, had said the Bush administration's tough policy toward North Korea was motivated primarily by Bush's desire to do the opposite of what his predecessor had done on foreign policy.

No, the administration's policy towards North Korea is NOT to reward them for breaking the agreement.

Han asserted that Pyongyang had been developing a working relationship with Washington toward the end of the Clinton era -- indeed, then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright visited Pyongyang just before President Bill Clinton left office -- but then faced a reversal of policy under Bush.

"They think the Bush people have closed the door on them just because Clinton had opened it," said someone involved in the Santa Fe talks.


I'm sure they also think Bush is some kind of deranged lunatic. That's what they get for basing their foriegn policy on the assessments of Ramsey Clark and Noam Chomsky.

North Korea has admitted it was seeking weapons-grade material through another route, by secretly enriching uranium. With the foundation for the light water reactors poured last fall, the official said, "we were getting . . . to the end of the road. Maybe that is what caused the North Koreans to do what they did. . . . They weren't prepared to sign on to safeguards" that would uncover the secret program.

I'm still not understanding how this problem was caused by the Bush Administration. I guess if we looked the other way, then the problem would just evaporate. Let's all play nice...no fair to point out that the other boy is CHEATING...it makes him FEEL BAD.

"The North Koreans are quite accustomed" to these tactics, the official said. "They threaten and blackmail, and people rush to deal with them. And then they keep their means of threatening and blackmailing.

Which is exactly why you don't negotiate with them. Unless they live up to the terms of the previous agreement, they can starve and freeze while they spend all their money trying to restart those reactors.

The North Korean envoys meeting with Richardson in Santa Fe said they have tried for weeks to arrange talks with the administration but have been repeatedly rebuffed, people involved in the talks said.

If all else fails, call the Governor of New Mexico...that's what I always say.

Richardson's aides said he had passed along the request for dialogue to Powell. In a statement issued after the Santa Fe talks, Richardson said, "Ambassador Han told me that North Korea has no intentions of building nuclear weapons."

If they have no intentions of building the weapons, why have they been trying (by their own admission) to acquire "weapons grade material"?

The only way you can negotiate with Pyongyang is to keep the "big stick" close at hand and clearly visible at all times. Giving them more concessions for creating an international crisis would be an extremely bad idea.


Home
Weblog Commenting by 
<!--WEBBOT bot=